Forget politics – Gary did not play by the BBC’s rules
‘He received warnings three years ago yet has continued to disregard rules and made clear his intention to keep doing so’
The row over Gary Lineker’s tweets is not about the right to free speech. Lineker is as entitled to his views as anyone else, even if some will have found his references to Nazi Germany deeply offensive. However, by accepting extremely well-paid employment from the BBC, he should have also accepted that this carries with it limitations on the exercise of that right and a requirement to stay out of political controversy.
Impartiality is one of the core principles of the BBC. It is written into the BBC’s mission and the maintenance of trust in the corporation worldwide depends upon its reputation for factual accuracy and objectivity. Obviously, that must apply above all to its journalists and news presenters. Emily
Maitlis, the former Newsnight anchor, whose tweets as well as on-air commentary were found to break impartiality rules, eventually resigned, while BBC News channel presenter Martine Croxall was suspended for 11 days for comments made about Boris Johnson. The rules do not just apply to journalists, however. The BBC’s Guidance on Social Media explicitly states that some employees who are not journalists still have an additional responsibility because of their profile at the BBC and that they should avoid taking sides on political controversies.
It is now 30 years since Lineker played for England and it seems doubtful that anyone would be interested in his political views if he had not remained on the TV screens each week as the anchor of BBC One’s
Match of the Day. He is now universally associated with the
BBC, with many younger viewers having little knowledge of his footballing past. Yet, despite this association, he has regularly expressed partisan views on the Conservative Party, Brexit, the environment and now migration policy. This led him to receive warnings from the directorgeneral three years ago, yet he has continued to disregard the rules and has made clear his intention to keep doing so. If this direct challenge to the director-general had been ignored, it would have undermined his authority, as well as upsetting all those other BBC employees who pay far closer regard to the rules.
Some have sought to contrast the treatment of Lineker with that of others appearing on the BBC, such as Lord Sugar. However, following a 2009 complaint from Jeremy Hunt when Lord Sugar was fronting The Apprentice despite being a Labour government adviser, the BBC stated that, after discussions, he had agreed to do nothing to compromise his work at the BBC and fully understood its conflict-of-interest guidelines.
It has also been suggested the BBC is already politically compromised because of the previous support given by its chairman, Richard Sharp, to the Conservative Party. While the circumstances of his appointment are still being reviewed, there is nothing new about a non-executive chairman or board members having political allegiance. Joel Barnett, a former Labour cabinet minister, served as vice-chairman of the BBC board of governors for seven years and Lord Patten of Barnes, a former Tory cabinet minister, chaired the BBC Trust from 2011-2014.
Baroness Wheatcroft, a former editor of this paper, misquoted me on the Today programme as saying that a comment by a leading BBC employee favouring the Conservatives would be a matter for the Labour Party to pursue.
I did not; I only said I am sure it would give rise to complaints from Labour and went on to say that I hoped that I would apply the same standards. The complaints about Gary Lineker are not driven by party politics but about the governance and reputation of the BBC. The situation has been complicated by the anomaly of different rules applying to those on freelance contracts and full-time employees. However, there needs to be far greater clarity about how far the impartiality rules need to apply and how they are enforced.
Under the BBC’s charter, which I helped draw up in 2016, a mid-term review of its governance and regulatory arrangements must be completed by 2024. It provides a perfect opportunity to look again at this question in order to protect the BBC’s reputation and ensure those who work for it understand and accept the responsibilities that come with that privilege.